Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)

[Justin Wells <jread@semiotek.com>]

I vote for this; gee you probably all guessed that I would. But as one of 
the main troublemakers in the recent thread, I want to make it clear that
I agree with this proposal. 

I think there are some unresolved issues that need to be decided:

   -- A way for root to get sash started, either from an existing
      shell (presumably a static su) or from a login prompt, or 
      via a linked and loaded sshd (which would not need to be static

Depending on how you arrange the answer to this, other issues may come
up: cloning the root user introduces several issues; making root's shell 
a static ash or sash is controversial in its own right.

Justin


On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 12:48:59AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> > 
> >  Richard> Do we have a consensus that sash should be priority "important"?
> > 
> >         Could you synopsize for me why imporant is better suited than
> >  standard? 
> 
> It's a matter of the definitions of both.  If the absence of a package
> would make an experienced Unix person react with surprise and
> annoyance, then it must be important.
> 
> We've found that the absence of statically linked binaries causes
> experienced Unix persons to react this way (the thread comes up often
> enough), and our answer is "We don't need to link stuff statically, we
> have sash".  Therefore, sash should be important to fill this role.
> 
> Richard Braakman
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>